2 Henry VI starts off moving slow. At first it seems like a rehash of Part One, with either side squabbling and trading barbs, but once Act Three hits the blood starts to spray! This play ramped up so fast that by the end I was left wondering what was left for Part Three. I am excited to see how Henry VI weasels out of this one.

Lyrically, I found this play to lack some of the brilliance and wit of other Shakespeare plays, there weren't many turns of phrase that I wanted to highlight, memorize, and quote at the end of the review, but for a lesser writer this wouldn't have been an issue. Shakespeare's unique problem is that he set the bar too high for himself. With this early work of his, quite possibly his very first (and also likely a collaboration with other writers) Shakespeare had yet to realize his full prowess, and I should ease up on him.

The Wars of the Roses pick up the steam in this play, and I'd love to see a film adaptation.

Henry continues to show how weak of a king he is. And gives ample room for those who seek power to back bite and kill their way to the top. But there was a moment when I felt for Henry and the heaviness of the crown he wore.

"Was never subject longed to be a king
As I do long and wish to be a subject!"

Also, the Arkangel recording with David Tennant as King Henry is phenomenal!

It had battles, witchcraft, adultery, and a strange act where there was this rebellion that a lot of time was spent on but you're not sure why.

I haven't read Part I of this, so I didn't really know what was going on (this was also partially due to the fact that the plot does not particularly lend itself to being comprehended by its readers), and it ends very much in the middle of things, without closure. I'll probably end up reading Part III at some point this semester. Maybe Queen Margaret will stop carting around a dead man's head, but I doubt it.

This is a profound improvement: less petty bickering, clearer motivations, and a stronger interpersonal focus (exactly what I wished for after Part 1) mean more to latch onto, which grounds the length and large cast. Even the action scenes works better here, primarily because the grotesque treatment of corpses gives weight to the violence. Margaret--simultaneously more observant and self-interested than Henry, without the short-sighted egoism of his adversaries; apparently mundane, but capable of such emotional excess (foiled by Eleanor's superstition and self-possession)--is what makes this play, for me. Her dynamic with Suffolk remains engaging and her contrast to Henry is my favorite of the play's themes. This was a pleasant surprise, especially as a Part 2.

I have definitely read more interesting Shakespeare plays..

Despite this being a history play, Queen Margaret is probably one of the best female characters ever written, and the brothers York, while certainly wronged, set up to be a trio of villains worthy of a fairy tale. Delightful.

King Henry VI has married Margaret of Anjou. Little does Henry know that his new wife is the lover of the Duke of Suffolk, who aims to influence the king through her. However, the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Protector, could end up ruining any plans. As a shocking twist, the Duke of Gloucester’s wife has her sights on the throne and, after summoning a spirit, becomes exiled. Meanwhile, the build-up to the War of the Roses is gaining strength and supporters.

I thought the first play was boring, but now I know the second is also boring, and I know I'm going to torture myself with the third.

There are far too many characters to keep track of, and because of that, it is harder to really know what is actually happening. The play bounces all over the place and ends up in a huge mess.

If a play could be torture, this one would constitute such. It was painful to read.